Indian army soldiers attacking Naya Chor in Sindh in support of Bengali rebels of the liberation army during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971

I was born in the middle of a cold winter night in December 1971 in Sindh, Pakistan. There was a blackout and bombs were falling.

Pakistan was losing a war and it was also losing its eastern half, separated from the rest of the country by more than 1,600km (990 miles) of India.

After nine months of internal strife and a military crackdown against Bangladeshi separatists, the full-scale war with India was swift and decisive. It lasted just 13 days.

The defeat of the Pakistani army on 16 December 1971 was a triumph for India and the Bengali insurgents it had assisted.

For Pakistan, it was perhaps the darkest moment in its history and the ultimate humiliation. The army stood accused of mass murder, torture and rape. Tens of thousands of Pakistani soldiers were taken prisoners of war.

Forty years on, I decided to examine the legacy of this brief but bitter war.

Growing up in Pakistan, we did not talk much about the war at home. In school, we seemed to rush through that period of our history.

On a recent visit to my old school in Karachi, I picked up an officially approved history book.

The book recognises that East Pakistanis felt culturally subjugated and economically exploited by their dominant Western half.

But it suggests the causes for separation include India, Hindu propaganda and international conspiracies.

At my old school I asked a group of teenage students if they had heard of the Bangladeshi accusations of genocide or widespread rape by the Pakistani army.

"That's wrong, that's propaganda!" several said.

"The Pakistani army is a professional army. They are Muslims. They couldn't have done that to their brothers and sisters over there."

'Foolish operation'

But if Pakistan has tried to treat the events of 1971 as a closed chapter, in Bangladesh, the wounds of the war are very fresh.

On my first ever visit to Dhaka, it was immediately clear that the Bangladeshi narrative of 1971 remains firmly focused on the violence unleashed by the Pakistani army.

Many Bangladeshis still feel very bitter about their treatment by West Pakistan, with discriminatory policies over economics and language.

In 1971, the West Pakistan leadership appeared to have made up its mind to answer this resentment with military force.

"It makes me think how foolish the entire operation was, how mad it was and how tragic it was," said Serajul Islam Choudhury, a professor at Dhaka University.

"There's no possibility of bringing down an entire people by the military coming from abroad. The loss we suffered was enormous."

As he stared at the list of names on a memorial honouring the teachers, students and staff of Dhaka University who died in 1971, his emotion is palpable.

"To this day, I feel very sad thinking of my colleagues who were killed during the military operations."

Lasting 13 days, the Indo-Pakistan war is considered one of the shortest wars in history. Pakistani forces surrendered on 16 December 1971.

The Bangladeshi government says that three million people were killed during the nine months of conflict. Some say that figure is too high and unverifiable.

And the mainstream Bangladeshi narrative is also accused of omitting alleged atrocities perpetrated by Bengali separatists against communities who were deemed loyal to Pakistan.

Entire villages are reported to have been attacked, homes burnt and families killed.

Aly Zaker was among thousands of Bengalis who took up arms to fight for independence.

"Our target was the Pakistan occupation force and their cohorts, who were created within the confines of Bangladesh with quislings," he says.

He believes that minorities only faced retribution after they had acted as proxies of the Pakistani army and killed Bengalis.

Existential fear

As I learned more about 1971, it seemed to me that many of the geopolitical patterns of Pakistan and the region were formed during that conflict.

If you look at the Indian armed forces deployment along the Pakistani border - their forward bases, their armoured divisions, their strike divisions - they can mobilise and go to war with us in 72 hoursâ€

Back then, the Pakistani army was accused of forming militia groups to do its bidding in East Pakistan. Since then, it has been seen to use similar tactics in Afghanistan and Kashmir.

Many warn that the dangerous nexus between the military and jihadi militant groups is now threatening Pakistan from within.

Ikram Seghal, a defence analyst who lectures in Pakistani military colleges, believes the biggest internal challenge to Pakistan today is terrorism.

But like many in the military, he sees India as the principal external threat.

"If you look at the Indian armed forces deployment along the Pakistani border - their forward bases, their armoured divisions, their strike divisions - they can mobilise and go to war with us in 72 hours. - Ikram Seghal, Pakistani defence analyst

"While for us, short of a nuclear strike, we cannot hold them."

This existential fear of a bigger, hostile India is central to Pakistan's security paradigm. In 1971 this fear was reinforced by the crucial role India played in the break up of Pakistan.

For India, the situation became serious when nearly 10 million Bengali refugees crossed the border into its territory. There was a humanitarian crisis, but also an opportunity to cut Pakistan down to size.

An elderly refugee walks alongside Indian troops advancing into East Pakistan (Bangladesh) during the Indo-Pakistani war of 1971

Pakistan's army today

AK Khandker is a senior minister in the Bangladeshi government and served as a separatist commander in 1971.

He says India started providing weapons and training to the rebels in May of that year, and stepped up the programme after signing a pact with the Soviet Union in August.

According to Mr Khandker, the attacks by Indian-trained separatist fighters were so effective, that by November "the Pakistani army was physically and morally exhausted."

Today he says that without India, the independence of Bangladesh "would have been extremely, extremely difficult".

"The help that India gave to us, we are so grateful to them," he says.

I'm a soldier and proud of being a soldier. But all the ills of Pakistan are because of the armed forces intervention in the civilian affairsâ€

One might expect that the Pakistani army's failure in 1971 would have diminished its power in the country. But in my lifetime, its influence in shaping and running the country has grown exponentially.

It seems the conclusion the Pakistani army drew from its defeat in 1971 was to grow stronger; to exercise more control over civilian affairs.

Many in Pakistan still regard the army as a saviour, the glue that holds the country together, saving it from corrupt politicians and enemies like India - and increasingly America.

But others feel it was the army's tight grip on power that contributed to the break up of Pakistan in the first place.

I'm a soldier and proud of being a soldier. But all the ills of Pakistan are because of the armed forces intervention in the civilian affairsâ€lt Gen Abdul Qadir baloch, Retired Pakistan Army
​

They believe that the military has stifled the country's democratic development, undermining its very fabric.

"I'm a soldier and proud of being a soldier. But all the ills of Pakistan are because of the armed forces intervention in the civilian affairs," says Lt Gen Abdul Qadir Baloch.

He retired from the army just a few years ago and is now a member of parliament.

"If the army had not imposed as many martial laws in this country - four so far - we would have had 15 to 20 elections by now and a much better lot of politicians than the sort of pygmies we have got today."

â€œâ€¦â€¦ we were told to kill the hindus and Kafirs (non-believer in God). One day in June, we cordoned a village and were ordered to kill the Kafirs in that area. We found all the village women reciting from the Holy Quran, and the men holding special congregational prayers seeking Godâ€™s mercy. But they were unlucky. Our commanding officer ordered us not to waste any time.â€Confession of a Pakistani Soldier
The Guinness Book of Records lists the Bangladesh Genocide as one of the top 5 genocides in the 20th century.

The genocide and gendercidal atrocities were also perpetrated by lower-ranking officers and ordinary soldiers. These â€œwilling executionersâ€ were fuelled by an abiding anti-Bengali racism, especially against the Hindu minority. â€œBengalis were often compared with monkeys and chickens. Said Pakistan General Niazi, â€˜It was a low lying land of low lying people.â€™ The Hindus among the Bengalis were as Jews to the Nazis: scum and vermin that [should] best be exterminated. As to the Moslem Bengalis, they were to live only on the sufferance of the soldiers: any infraction, any suspicion cast on them, any need for reprisal, could mean their death. And the soldiers were free to kill at will. The journalist Dan Coggin quoted one Punjabi captain as telling him, â€˜We can kill anyone for anything. We are accountable to no one.â€™ This is the arrogance of Power.â€ (Rummel, Death By Government, p. 335.)

â€œIn what became province-wide acts of genocide, Hindus were sought out and killed on the spot. As a matter of course, soldiers would check males for the obligated circumcision among Moslems. If circumcised, they might live; if not, sure death.â€

â€œ..It is Mujibâ€™s home district. Kill as many bastards as you can and make sure there is no Hindu left alive,â€ I was ordered. â€“ Colonel Nadir Ali, retired Pakistan Army Officer , Punjabi poet and short story writer

BTW,
that map shows much of Kashmir in different colour. Tibet is accepted as part of China, further even Bhutan is gifted China. Maybe in few years, these map makers will include Delhi also in China...

I am not the one saying this:"Pakistan as a country needs to be erased from world map."

Click to expand...

Please note the highlighted words. Thats exactly why I said you confuse a state(country/nation) with people. Breaking or erasing a state(country/nation) is not equivalent to killing the people and vice versa.

The distinction can be hard for a chinese to understand given that China has been subjected to Communist propaganda from 1949.

The following countries are one-party states in which the institutions of the ruling communist party and the state have become intertwined; hence they fall under the definition of Socialist states seeking to build a communist society. They are listed here together with the year of their founding and their respective ruling parties:[24]

Please note the highlighted words. Thats exactly why I said you confuse a state(country/nation) with people. Breaking or erasing a state(country/nation) is not equivalent to killing the people and vice versa.

Here is a defination of country:1.a. A nation or state.
b. The territory of a nation or state; land.c. The people of a nation or state; populace:

Please note the highlighted words. A government, on the other hand dont fall into a, b or c. See the difference between a government and a country? No?

The distinction can be hard for a chinese to understand given that China has been subjected to Communist propaganda from 1949.

Hilarious since I am neither a chinese or live in China.

The following countries are one-party states in which the institutions of the ruling communist party and the state have become intertwined; hence they fall under the definition of Socialist states seeking to build a communist society. They are listed here together with the year of their founding and their respective ruling parties:[24]

Please note the highlighted words. Try to read it carefully a couple times. Or ask your teacher what communism means. I am sure they will explain to you why none of those countries practice communism today.

BTW, have I accused you of living in China? I carefully avoided that charge. I simply said that a common chinese who is subjected to communist propaganda may not be able to differentiate between the state and people. If you dont live in China, then that statement does not apply to you. Why are you getting your panties in a twist then?

A communist state is a state with a form of government characterized by single-party rule or dominant-party rule of a communist party and a professed allegiance to a Leninist or Marxist-Leninist communist ideology as the guiding principle of the state. According to this principle public ownership of all means of production by the Communist party-run state is necessary for the possibility to further the interest of the working class. According to Marxist-Leninists, a multi-party state allows parties to represent interests of subgroups instead of the coherent whole, and because it allows private fortune, it allows private fortune to distort the political decision-making.[citation needed]

In practice, the so-called Communist states do not refer to themselves as Communist states. They constitutionally identify themselves as socialist states or Workers' states. The primary goal of these states, and their justification for single-party rule, is to guide their respective countries in the process of constructing socialism.

Communist states may have several legal political parties, but the communist party is usually granted a special or dominant role in government,[1] often by statute or under the constitution. Consequently, the institutions of the state and of the communist party become intimately entwined, such as in the development of parallel institutions.

And I can give you Bangladesh, Pakistan as exempel of how a country can be dissolved which involved lots of deaths. If you think that you can break up Pakistan without any death, then you are out of your freaking mind. Try to think first before you post crap like this.

You should grow a brain and stop equating state/country with people.
A country is where people live. You can remove a government but not erase a country. If you dont know the distinction, then i am wasting my time on you.

BTW, have I accused you of living in China? I carefully avoided that charge. I simply said that a common chinese who is subjected to communist propaganda may not be able to differentiate between the state and people. If you dont live in China, then that statement does not apply to you. Why are you getting your panties in a twist then?

Click to expand...

You are the one brought up the mambo jumbo about common chinese subjected to communist propaganda. How is that relevant to any of this? So who is the one getting panties in a twist then?